H1 & Anor v W & Ors [2024] EWHC 382 (Comm) (22 February 2024)

H1 & Anor v W & Ors [2024] EWHC 382 (Comm) (22 February 2024)

The arbitrator's statements at the Second Procedural Hearing, particularly his remarks that he knew the insured's expert witnesses 'personally extremely well' and would believe their evidence because of their reputation, coupled with his dismissal of the need to hear expert evidence and his comments about a key witness 'switching sides', would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The arbitrator's conduct demonstrated a closed mind and reliance on extraneous considerations, undermining the requirement of impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 382 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: H1; Claimant/applicant: H2; Defendant/respondent: W; Defendant/respondent: D; Defendant/respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (removal of Arbitrator) / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator Under S.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application granted; arbitrator removed for apparent bias.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Removal of Arbitrator, Impartiality of Tribunal, Film Production Insurance, Procedural Fairness
Arbitration Insurance Law Commercial Law Apparent Bias Removal of Arbitrator Impartiality of Tribunal Film Production Insurance Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H1

Claimant/applicant

H2

Claimant/applicant

W

Defendant/respondent

D

Defendant/respondent

F

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (removal of Arbitrator) / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator Under S.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's conduct gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether statements and conduct by the arbitrator amounted to apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's statements at the Second Procedural Hearing, particularly his remarks that he knew the insured's expert witnesses 'personally extremely well' and would believe their evidence because of their reputation, coupled with his dismissal of the need to hear expert evidence and his comments about a key witness 'switching sides', would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The arbitrator's conduct demonstrated a closed mind and reliance on extraneous considerations, undermining the requirement of impartiality under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application granted; arbitrator removed for apparent bias.

Orders

  • W is removed as arbitrator under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996.
  • W is entitled to payment of his fees up to the conclusion of the Second Procedural Hearing on 23 November 2023.